Should IMO watch the movie again,and honestly pay attention,especially the ones who got no chance to talk at all(if it should be done).

1) Jolt,if you watch in the scene when him,Ratchet,Sideswipe,and Ironhide are standing around,you can tell that he is alert,and calm(despite having zero dialog),a side from obviously being smart,brave,loyal,helpful,independent,reliable,and dependent when fighting as seen in the final battle.

2) The Protoforms pretty much have the same characterization if you just pay attention to them,and I came to the realization yesterday that Wheelie clearly has more personality than any of the new Autobots in the movie,if you take into consideration a fair amount of his scenes.

3) Wheelie:Small,vulgar,funny,horny,reluctant,fearful,smart,helpful,independent,dependent and flawed(he obviously has short comings for a semi Decepticon like himself).

Back to Jolt,I get a very strong feeling that despite him having no dialog,that he is more of the strongly silent type. I can't prove it at all,but that's how I feel about him when I think about him standing around with Ratchet,Ironhide,and Sideswipe at the military base outside.

So the bottom line is,some of this info can very easily be picked up on if you think hard enough while watching the movie,all this new revelation that dawned on me is extra icing on the cake regarding the movie.

They had no character DEVELOPMENT, true, but anyone that says NO PERSONALITY BLERUGH is stupid, even the lack of action can be evidence of somebody's personality.

Click to expand...

Imo,if they had no character development,then in my mind I don't think I would have picked up on extra personality traits that I never picked up on before. So I sooooo don't digress with all due respect.

Sorry but there is no way I'll ever watch Revenge of the Fallen a second time. I know there are worse films out there, but there just aren't enough good things in the film to make it worth enduring all the bad stuff again just to see if I can gleam a shimmer of personality out of the cannon fodder.

Sorry but there is no way I'll ever watch Revenge of the Fallen a second time. I know there are worse films out there, but there just aren't enough good things in the film to make it worth enduring all the bad stuff again just to see if I can gleam a shimmer of personality out of the cannon fodder.

Click to expand...

I know that you're one of the many Transformers fans who hated the movie a lot,so it comes to me as no surprise that you have zero interest in watching the movie ever again,I also don't expect the people who hated the movie so much to watch it again either.

I know that you're one of the many Transformers fans who hated the movie a lot,so it comes to me as no surprise that you have zero interest in watching the movie ever again,I also don't expect the people who hated the movie so much to watch it again either.

Click to expand...

Ah good. I don't mind discussing areas of the film where they got things just right, dropped the ball, or managed something in the middle that wasn't so good but then wasn't that bad either. Watching it again though isn't my thing so I have to rely on other people for those little things that can be missed on the first viewing.

So the bottom line is,some of this info can very easily be picked up on if you think hard enough while watching the movie,all this new revelation that dawned on me is extra icing on the cake regarding the movie.

Click to expand...

You got it nailed on the head on both sides. Yes, these characters are, indeed, characters. Unfortunately, they are implied traits that rely on us, the audience, to attach to the characters. It is the storytellers' responsibility to establish these characters and flesh them out for us. When you have to draw these conclusions after, as I pointed out, thinking hard, then they dropped the ball.

It is no different than fans trying to justify plot holes. Out thoughts should be in reaction to the story, not in filling in the gaps.

You got it nailed on the head on both sides. Yes, these characters are, indeed, characters. Unfortunately, they are implied traits that rely on us, the audience, to attach to the characters. It is the storytellers' responsibility to establish these characters and flesh them out for us. When you have to draw these conclusions after, as I pointed out, thinking hard, then they dropped the ball.

It is no different than fans trying to justify plot holes. Out thoughts should be in reaction to the story, not in filling in the gaps.

Click to expand...

Eh,so they weren't flat out 100% obvious,I'm not a lover of subtle stuff for the most part,but the stuff that I think is new to me doesn't bug me at all. And they make perfect sense to me because they came off as authentic,I think it is different because we are discussing body language,logic can't only be strictly relevant to it. It's not necessary for them to hit us over the head about stuff,if we can pick up on things that aren't spelled out for us majorly.

I think it is different because we are discussing body language,logic can't only be strictly relevant to it. It's not necessary for them to hit us over the head about stuff,if we can pick up on things that aren't spelled out for us majorly.

Click to expand...

Here's the logical fault in your basic idea. Any posture, movement, or action can and will be interpreted by human beings as being indicative of something internal to the character.

So literally any way the animators animated the characters will, by default, make some impression on the audience, even if it was lazy, or half-assed, or wholly unintended.

See that? Disregard anything you may know about this character in any medium. Now, draw and impression from what you see. Now, look at the comments section. Note the similarity of the replies?

So judging the characterization of someone like Jolt from a few, blurry seconds of movement that may not have even been choreographed beyond positioning and actions taken isn't logically sound because there may actually literally be no intent behind it on the part of the filmmakers at all.

See that? Disregard anything you may know about this character in any medium. Now, draw and impression from what you see. Now, look at the comments section. Note the similarity of the replies?

So judging the characterization of someone like Jolt from a few, blurry seconds of movement that may not have even been choreographed beyond positioning and actions taken isn't logically sound because there may actually literally be no intent behind it on the part of the filmmakers at all.

- Coeloptera

Click to expand...

Maybe it was intentionally injected,but I am pretty sure it was done on purpose despite not knowing the truth,all the subtle stuff that was in the forest battle certainly was done on purpose. And the questionable stuff that was done,cannot be undone.

How much of the characterization you mentioned was actually present, and how much do you think was projected onto what you saw? What character aspects were you actually looking for, due to background information from the comics, toys, novelization, etc.

I honestly don't think you can fit much characterization into the 1-3 minutes of screen time a lot of the characters got.

Yea sarcasm, sorry if I came off a "hater". Lol I seem the movie a few times, have it on my iPhone, 2 times at th movies. I don't know man. It really seems like your grasping at straws. Most of the bots didn't have lines all. You can make up anything you would like but to me your bending the movie to fill in the gaps. But I'm not trying to hate I
saying your making alot of guesses with no real backup.

You called sideswipe acrobatic, dude that's like calling Sam a track star because he was running. See what I'm saying?

You got it nailed on the head on both sides. Yes, these characters are, indeed, characters. Unfortunately, they are implied traits that rely on us, the audience, to attach to the characters. It is the storytellers' responsibility to establish these characters and flesh them out for us. When you have to draw these conclusions after, as I pointed out, thinking hard, then they dropped the ball.

It is no different than fans trying to justify plot holes. Out thoughts should be in reaction to the story, not in filling in the gaps.

Click to expand...

The "thinking hard" is a relative concept to the individual, just as there are those who picked up on things with ease. Everyone had a unique experience watching the movie.

Eh,so they weren't flat out 100% obvious,I'm not a lover of subtle stuff for the most part,but the stuff that I think is new to me doesn't bug me at all. And they make perfect sense to me because they came off as authentic,I think it is different because we are discussing body language,logic can't only be strictly relevant to it. It's not necessary for them to hit us over the head about stuff,if we can pick up on things that aren't spelled out for us majorly.

Click to expand...

I...I honestly have no idea what your argument is...

Look, I am not saying they need to have someone say "Sideswipe is an arrogant jerk" or something. That isn't good storytelling either (show, don't say) but most of what you described are things that happened in the background. You had to look away from the story to see these things, thus being drawn out of the story. It is great that the animators included it. That is why ILM makes serious money. But it isn't good storytelling.

You talk a bit about Jolt's character, but he was never brought to the forefront. He was never the focus of anything. His name is mentioned once but Optimus is still the driving character of that scene. Sure, the animators had his react to things, and there is evidence that there might be something of an actually character there, but it wasn't part of the story, it didn't drive anything.

Yea sarcasm, sorry if I came off a "hater". Lol I seem the movie a few times, have it on my iPhone, 2 times at th movies. I don't know man. It really seems like your grasping at straws. Most of the bots didn't have lines all. You can make up anything you would like but to me your bending the movie to fill in the gaps. But I'm not trying to hate I
saying your making alot of guesses with no real backup.

You called sideswipe acrobatic, dude that's like calling Sam a track star because he was running. See what I'm saying?

But in the end, if your happy it's cool with me.

Click to expand...

I see,well I've seen the movie more than once,I see what you are saying. But to me he did a crazy twisty flip in the air. Not everyone has the ability to move like that in the air.

Look, I am not saying they need to have someone say "Sideswipe is an arrogant jerk" or something. That isn't good storytelling either (show, don't say) but most of what you described are things that happened in the background. You had to look away from the story to see these things, thus being drawn out of the story. It is great that the animators included it. That is why ILM makes serious money. But it isn't good storytelling.

You talk a bit about Jolt's character, but he was never brought to the forefront. He was never the focus of anything. His name is mentioned once but Optimus is still the driving character of that scene. Sure, the animators had his react to things, and there is evidence that there might be something of an actually character there, but it wasn't part of the story, it didn't drive anything.

Click to expand...

Well no offense,but unlike you,I don't require every single character that are background characters in the movies I see being a part of the story. It would be forced and unnecessary imo. I embraced that along time ago.